Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Censorship Industrial Complex

Retired judge says Freedom Convoy organizers on trial represent all opponents to current government

Published

3 months ago

14 minute read

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Brian Giesbrecht

Hold the line

The marathon trial of Tamara Lich has resumed. This is definitely the most high-profile trial in Canada in years. Millions of our tax dollars have been spent to prosecute this Métis grandmother (and Chris Barber). Seasoned prosecutors have been seconded, and all of the resources of both the federal and Ontario governments have been employed to get a conviction. Seemingly at any cost.

So, the charges must be extremely serious? Surely, we are talking about some deadly terrorist attack, or something that involves multiple murders and mayhem – at the least!

Well…, no. That tiny, polite grandmother is charged, essentially, with……. mischief.

Mischief? Isn’t that a charge that is usually used to deal with a kid spray-painting graffiti on a wall, or an inebriated fellow doing something foolish while under the influence?

Not so, in the case of Tamara. They are going after her with everything at their disposal. They are pulling out all the stops – spending millions of dollars of our money to nail this gentle, former physical fitness trainer and bookkeeper on a tarted-up charge of mischief. They seem determined to make an example of her.

But an example of what? Here’s my answer: An example of what will happen to any of us if we express views that the government in power does not like -what our Prime Minister refers to as “unacceptable views” that conflict with his progressive vision. They aren’t just going after Tamara; they are going after us.

If you doubt this, think of any protest in memory that has the support of progressives, where any of the organizers have been prosecuted so vigorously just to teach that person a lesson.

After all, there are no shortage of protests. We have had dozens of indigenous, BLM, climate, and Palestinian protests in recent years. Every large protest attracts some undesirables, who participate in violence and mayhem. The BLM and antifa protests – the one our PM actively participated in despite all of his lockdown rules then in place – toppled statues and did much property damage. Surely at least one of the Canadian protest organizers could have been charged, as Tamara was. Not so.

But the vast majority of the people participating in these large protests simply want to make their point. That’s the purpose of protests. They allow people to have their say, and let off steam. Our western liberal democracies allow such things. In fact, without active citizen participation, our liberal democracies would wither and die. Citizens of liberal democracies must be free to peacefully protest when they feel the need to do so. Democratic governments must be robust enough to tolerate protests, and other forms of dissent.

In the trucker convoy protest the main point that the protesters wanted to make was about government overreach. They believed that the government reaction to the nasty Covid virus was extreme and overdone. The final straw was the imposition of a vaccine mandate on truckers at a time when everyone knew that the vaccine did not prevent a person from either becoming infected with, or transmitting, the virus. When the Trudeau government imposed its vaccine mandate this was known with certainty. The protestors were aware of that, and suspected that the decision to impose an unnecessary mandate was purely political. They insisted on their right to make a personal choice about what went into their bodies, and argued that the vaccine mandate was a denial of their basic freedoms. They wanted to state their case to the prime minister about it. But he had no time for them.

That’s what the convoy protest was all about. It was just one of many protests any liberal democracy has had, are having, and will have in the future.

But in how many of those protests do we find a Tamara – namely one person singled out as a sacrificial lamb? Shackled, dumped in a filthy cell, forced to share that cell with a mentally unstable person, and without even a book to read. And then hauled back and forth to court to be yelled at by openly hostile prosecutors. Followed by a year long trial. For a mischief charge. (Lich describes her ordeal in “Hold the Line.”

The answer is that where progressives rule – that’s here, folks – this only happens to people with “unacceptable views”. The authorities in progressive-run administrations only go after conservatives, because those are the people with “unacceptable views”. They leave progressives alone. Justin Trudeau will “take a knee” in protests he agrees with – but will bring the hammer down with thundering force on any “unacceptable fringe view” that he doesn’t like. Hamas protesters appear to be able do virtually whatever they want – even confining Jewish citizens to “ghettos”, and yelling vile, antisemitic slurs at them. The authorities will simply let it pass. Like Sergeant Schultz in “Hogan’s Heroes” they  “see nussing”.

But if you happen to drive a truck, and insist on your right to decide what drugs will be injected into your body, you are fair game. There will be no shortage of police chiefs and other government officials willing to go after you.

That’s where we are now, with the trial in its final stages. There’s a good chance that Tamara will be acquitted. She is in front of an experienced and independent judge, and the evidence against her is contrived.

But there are many lesser-known people prosecuted during the lockdown and convoy protest who do not have Tamara’s high profile that gives her the ability to raise the hundreds of thousands of dollars she has needed to defend herself. Many ordinary Canadians have been convicted of offences relating to the lockdown and convoy protests for the simple reason that they couldn’t afford the time and money to defend themselves against often unfair charges.

Something similar is happening in Britain right now, where widespread dissatisfaction with government failure to limit and regulate mass immigration – particularly of immigrants who have no intention of integrating- has resulted in both protests, and out-of-control rioting. Mass immigration, like lockdown legislation, is a topic on which conservatives and progressives tend to disagree sharply. The Starmer government’s one-sided reaction to the protests and riots – as in the case of our lockdown regulations and convoy protest – is causing both unfairness and injustice for many ordinary Brits. There is general agreement that the thugs who participated in violence in the riots deserve their fate, and are rightly being jailed. But the vast majority of ordinary Brits, who are appalled at what uncontrolled immigration is doing to their country, are being silenced by threats of prosecution and jail.

People are being prosecuted simply for making intemperate comments on social media.  Some who did not even participate in the protests are being jailed.

Those Britons are receiving the same threat that our prime minister has given to us – if you have an “unacceptable view” you had better not share it. Leaders, like Starmer and Trudeau, who choose to shame and silence half of their populations are playing with fire. They can only survive by becoming increasingly authoritarian.

Their brute message takes many forms. “Two tier policing” is one – namely, the police treating lockdown, or immigration protestors in a completely different way than they do pro-Hamas or BLM type protestors. “Lawfare” is another – weaponizing the law to go after those you disagree with. The Online Harms Act pushed by the Trudeau government will do exactly that. All involve the bullying of people who do not agree with the progressive views now in fashion.

These illiberal tactics threaten the rule of law that has evolved in western civilization through Magna Carta, and on to the present. The rule of law is fragile, and it is not compatible with opportunistic politicians who tamper with it by weaponizing the law to crush dissent, and to destroy their enemies. Those leaders risk seriously damaging our basic institutions with their cynical experiments in authoritarianism.

Canada, like Britain, also sees tension rising over the immigration issue. Most Canadians welcome  controlled immigration. But they want immigrants who intend to integrate into the Canadian mosaic. This issue will become increasingly contentious, and Canadians who are opposed to what the current federal government is doing with immigration must be allowed to voice their opposition. That opposition includes the right to protest peacefully.

We are going to see many contentious issues arise over the next few decades. It is very likely that the government of the day will not like some of the views that are voiced by dissenters. The point is that Canadians must have the right to peacefully present their views, as Tamara Lich has done, without being treated the way dissidents are in authoritarian regimes. Conservative thinkers must not allow themselves to be intimidated into silence by progressives.

And we must be able to rely on our courts to protect those rights. The courts largely failed to protect the freedoms of lockdown dissenters in the COVID years. This has to change, or our individual freedoms will not be worth the paper they are written on. Overreaching governments must be held to account.

There is much to think about as the longest and most expensive mischief trial in Canadian history finally heads to its conclusion. The trial judge will tell Tamara if she is guilty or not guilty. But the Trudeau and Ford government are effectively on trial as well. Was their treatment of this one small lady something that should happen here? Is this what Canada has become? The Lich decision has the potential to be an important turning point for this country.

Tamara Lich did not lie down in front of a tank. She did not spend years in the Gulag. But she has been treated shabbily by the Trudeau and Ford governments. And in her gentle and respectful response to this Big Brother bullying she has taught us something. It is this: Stand up for your beliefs. Hold the line.

At some point the Trudeau Liberals will be relegated to the history books. What will they be remembered for? Trudeau’s imposition of The Emergency Act will certainly be on the top of that list. That is – without doubt – one of the low points in the history of this great country. But surely, the trial of Tamara Lich will be right up there on that list as well. A polite Métis grandmother, imprisoned and relentlessly persecuted for daring to stand up for what she believes in, has become an inspiration for those of us who cherish freedom.

Brian Giesbrecht, retired judge, is a Senior Fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Business / 1 hour ago

Trump’s government efficiency department plans to cut $500 Billion in unauthorized expenditures, including funding for Planned Parenthood

Alberta / 4 hours ago

Alberta government announces review of Trudeau’s euthanasia regime

Censorship Industrial Complex / 5 hours ago

Congressional investigation into authors of ‘Disinformation Dozen’ intensifies

Censorship Industrial Complex

Congressional investigation into authors of ‘Disinformation Dozen’ intensifies

Published on November 21, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Dr. Michael Nevradakis of The Defender

The Center for Countering Digital Hate, authors of ‘The Disinformation Dozen,’ faces a Nov. 21 deadline to provide Congress with documents related to its alleged collusion with the Biden administration and social media platforms to censor online users.

The Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), authors of the “Disinformation Dozen,” faces a Nov. 21 deadline to provide Congress with documents related to its alleged collusion with the Biden administration and social media platforms to censor online users.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, on Nov. 7 subpoenaed CCDH  as part of an ongoing congressional investigation, launched in August 2023, into the nonprofit’s censorship-related activities.

The subpoena requests all communications and documents “between or among CCDH, the Executive Branch, or third parties, including social media companies, relating to the identification of groups, accounts, channels, or posts for moderation, deletion, suppression, restriction, or reduced circulation.”

The subpoena also requests all records, notes, and other “documents of interactions between or among CCDH and the Executive Branch referring or relating to ‘killing’ or taking adverse action against Elon Musk’s X social media platform (formerly Twitter).”

 

CCDH previously included Kennedy on its “Disinformation Dozen” list, published in March 2021, of the 12 “leading online anti-vaxxers.”

Leaked CCDH documents released last month by investigative journalists Paul D. Thacker and Matt Taibbi revealed that CCDH sought to “kill” Twitter and launch “black ops” against Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President-elect Donald J. Trump’s nominee for secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

“Black ops” are defined as a “secret mission or campaign carried out by a military, governmental or other organization, typically one in which the organization conceals or denies its involvement.”

A subsequent report by Taibbi and Thacker showed that CCDH employed tactics it initially developed to help U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and the U.S. Democratic Party, to target Musk, Kennedy and others.

CCDH used ‘explicit military terminology’ to target speech

Thacker told The Defender the leaked documents “definitely spurred” Jordan’s subpoena.

Sayer Ji, the founder of GreenMedInfo, was also listed among “The Disinformation Dozen.” He said the leaked documents were “chilling” and that CCDH’s efforts were part of “the largest coordinated foreign influence operation targeting American speech since 1776.”

Ji told The Defender:

The leaked documents confirm what we experienced firsthand: CCDH wasn’t just targeting 12 individuals – we were test cases for deploying military-grade psychological operations against civilians at scale.

Just as the British Crown once used seditious libel laws to silence colonial dissent, CCDH’s operation expanded to silence hundreds of millions globally, from doctors sharing clinical observations to parents discussing vaccine injuries.

Ohio physician Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, also on “The Disinformation Dozen” list, told The Defender, “The exposure of the manipulation that went on behind the scenes to silence us is what we suspected, and now we know … We have the sad last laugh against their attacks. They are the ones with blood on their hands.”

Ji said CCDH’s internal communications reveal not just bias, “but explicit military terminology – ‘black ops,’ ‘target acquisition,’ ‘strategic deployment’ – coordinated between Five Eyes networks and dark money interests to target constitutionally protected speech.”

Writing on GreenMedInfo, Ji said, “CCDH’s ‘black ops’ approach includes coordinated media smears, economic isolation, and digital censorship.” Ji said CCDH’s activities represent “a new level of institutionalized power directed at civilian targets, often bypassing constitutional safeguards.”

Thacker said Jordan’s investigation should expand to include CCDH’s “black ops.”

“I don’t want to speculate on what CCDH was doing with ‘black ops’ against Kennedy,” Thacker said. “I think that should be explored by a congressional committee, with CCDH CEO Imran Ahmed put under oath,” Thacker said.

CCDH facing multiple lawsuits, possible Trump administration investigation

Jordan’s subpoena is the latest in a series of legal challenges for CCDH. According to GreenMedInfo, the organization faces several lawsuits and government investigations.

Following last month’s CCDH document leak, the Trump campaign said an investigation into CCDH “will be at the top of the list.”

The campaign also filed a complaint against the Harris campaign with the Federal Election Commission, “for making and accepting illegal foreign national contributions” – namely, from the U.K. Labour Party.

This followed the release of evidence indicating that the Biden administration coordinated with the U.K. Foreign Office as part of what GreenMedInfo described “as a systematic censorship regime involving CCDH and affiliated organizations.”

A lawsuit Musk filed against CCDH in July 2023 for allegedly illegally obtaining data and using it in a “scare campaign” to deter advertisers from X will likely proceed on appeal. A federal court initially dismissed the lawsuit in March.

Discovery in the Missouri v. Biden free speech lawsuit may also “shed further light and legal scrutiny on the critical role that CCDH played in allegedly suppressing and violating the civil liberties of U.S. citizens,” according to GreenMedInfo.

CCDH, others flee X in protest

Earlier this week, CCDH deleted its account on X, the platform it wanted to “kill.”

Writing on Substack, Ji said CCDH’s departure from X, during the same week Trump nominated Kennedy to lead HHS, represents a “seismic shift” and marks “a watershed moment, signaling the unraveling of entrenched systems of control and the rise of a new era for health freedom and open discourse.”

Several other left-leaning organizations and individuals, including The Guardian and journalist Don Lemon, also said they will stop using X, after Trump tapped Musk to lead a federal agency tasked with increasing government efficiency.

According to NBC News, many ordinary users are also fleeing X, citing “bots, partisan advertisements and harassment, which they all felt reached a tipping point when Donald Trump was elected president last week with Musk’s support.”

But according to Adweek, X’s former top advertisers, including Comcast, IBM, Disney, Warner Bros. Discovery and Lionsgate Entertainment, resumed ad spending on the platform this year, but at “much lower rates” than before.

“Elon Musk’s ties with Donald Trump might spur some advertisers to think spending on X is good for business,” Adweek reported.

Thacker said CCDH’s deletion of its X account was “aligned” with the departure of “other organizations and ‘journalists’ aligned with the Democratic Party.” He said it appears to have been a “coordinated protest.”

Ji said organizations like CCDH view X “as an existential threat.” He added:

Having experienced both Twitter 1.0’s AI-driven censorship system and X’s more open environment, I understand exactly why CCDH sees X as an existential threat. X represents what Twitter 1.0’s embedded censorship infrastructure was designed to prevent: a truly free digital public square.

Under Musk’s commitment to free speech, their tactical advantage disappeared. They’re not leaving because X is toxic. They’re leaving because they can’t control it.

Online censorship ‘may no longer be sustainable under intensified scrutiny’

According to GreenMedInfo, CCDH’s departure from X “appears to reflect an internal recognition that their operational model – characterized by critics as a US-U.K. intelligence ‘cut-out’ facilitating  unconstitutional suppression of civil liberties – may no longer be sustainable under intensified scrutiny.”

In recent months, several mainstream media outlets have corrected stories that relied upon CCDH reports claiming “The Disinformation Dozen” was responsible for up to two-thirds of vaccine-related “misinformation” online.

According to Thacker, this reflects an increasing awareness by such outlets that readers are turning their backs on such reporting.

“The outlets that promoted CCDH propaganda are being investigated by their own readers, who are fleeing in droves. Readers are voting against this type of propaganda by refusing to subscribe to these media outlets,” Thacker said.

Yet, “many outlets continue to host these demonstrably false narratives without correction,” Ji said.

According to Ji, these false narratives resulted in medical professionals fearing the loss of their licenses for expressing non-establishment views, self-censorship among scientists “to avoid career destruction,” suppression of “critical public health discussions” and the labeling of millions of posts as “misinformation.”

“This isn’t just about suppressing speech. It’s about establishing a new form of digital control that echoes the colonial-era suppression our founders fought against,” Ji said.

“CCDH has polluted political discourse by pretending there is some absolute definition of the term ‘misinformation’ and that they hold the dictionary,” Thacker said. “That’s nonsense. They spread hate and misinformation to attack perceived political enemies of the Democratic Party.”

Ji called upon Congress to investigate “The full scope of those silenced beyond the ‘Disinformation Dozen,’” the “systematic suppression of scientific debate,” “media organizations’ role in amplifying foreign influence operations” and “dark money funding networks” supporting such organizations.

Thacker said Congress should examine possible CCDH violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act. “We need to also look at how much foreign money they took in and whether we as a nation are comfortable with foreign influence trying to alter the law and political discussions.”

“The fight isn’t just about correcting past wrongs or personal vindication. It’s about preserving fundamental rights to free speech and scientific inquiry in the digital age,” Ji said. “If we don’t address this systematic abuse of power, we risk surrendering the very freedoms our founders fought to establish.”

This article was originally published by The Defender – Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

Continue Reading

Aristotle Foundation

Toronto cancels history, again: The irony and injustice of renaming Yonge-Dundas Square to Sankofa Square

Published on November 20, 2024

By

From the Aristotle Foundation

By Greg Piasetzki

In 2022, Torontonians renamed Ryerson University to Toronto Metropolitan University, “to address the legacy of Egerton Ryerson.”1 Rather than remember him as the founder of Ontario’s system of “free” public schools and libraries, Ryerson was “cancelled” for his suggestions regarding the curriculum for the Indian residential schools that were then being proposed. However, the schools themselves were not built until some 30 years later, after Ryerson was dead. Further, modern complaints about the schools are generally misconceived and have little to do with the curriculum.2

In 2024, Toronto is at it again. This time, the historical figure targeted for cancellation is abolitionist Henry Dundas, as city officials seek to wipe his name from Yonge-Dundas Square. The square is a notable city landmark and one of Canada’s most popular tourist destinations. Filled with brightly lit electronic advertisement billboards, the square serves as an iconic social hub and venue for events connected to Toronto’s cultural festivals. The city’s former mayor, John Tory, summarized the case for renaming the famous square – based on a report from city hall – as follows:

An objective reading of the history, the significance of this street which crosses our city, the fact that Mr. Dundas had virtually no connection to Toronto and our strong commitment to equity, inclusion and reconciliation make this a unique and symbolically important change.3

The new name, “Sankofa Square,” is taken not from anything Torontonian, Ontarian, or even Canadian – but from the Akan people of West Africa.

Ironically, city officials not only appear ignorant of Henry Dundas’ many contributions to Canada, and to the abolition of slavery, but are also blissfully unaware that the Akan people of Africa were notorious slave traders responsible for capturing and selling one to two million of their fellow Africans into slavery.4

The man: Who was Henry Dundas?

Henry Dundas was a Scottish lawyer, politician, and one of British Prime Minister William Pitt’s most trusted and powerful ministers who served during the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars.

Critically, Dundas was also a staunch abolitionist, committed to ending slavery as an institution in the British Empire and elsewhere in the world.

As early as 1777, when he was in his thirties, Dundas publicly established his abolitionist position on slavery. When Joseph Knight, a slave from Jamaica, was taken to Scotland by his owner, he challenged his status as a slave under Scottish law. Dundas, then Lord Advocate (principal legal advisor to the government), took on Knight’s case in his private capacity as a lawyer. On the final appeal before Scotland’s highest court, Dundas argued passionately, and with some humour, against the inhumanity of slavery:

We may possibly see the master chastising his slave as he does his ox or his horse. Perhaps, too, he may shoot him when he turns old […]

[But] [h]uman nature, my Lords, spurns at the thought of slavery among any part of our species.5

The court agreed and declared that no slave could remain a slave once they arrived on Scottish soil.6

A decade later, a religiously-inspired Christian abolition movement began in Britain (most famously personified by William Wilberforce) with the goal of ending the Atlantic slave trade. Dundas was a supporter of the movement, but urged that its members go further and challenge not just the Atlantic slave trade but seek the abolition of slavery itself – a much bigger challenge since at that time slavery was practiced on every inhabited continent.

During the 300 or more years the transatlantic slave trade existed, estimates are that 10 million to 12 million Africans were captured, enslaved, and sold by their fellow Africans. The purchasers were largely British, Portuguese, and French traders who acted as intermediaries in shipping slaves to the Americas for re-sale. The destination for 50 percent of the slaves was South America, 45 percent went to the West Indies, and about four percent went to what would become the United States.7,8 Dundas understood that, unless slavery itself was ended – with its unrelenting violence, forced labour, and premature death – slavery as an institution would continue for generations, since legally the children of slaves were considered chattel (like livestock) and were thus also slaves like their parents.

The controversy: Did Dundas’ abolitionism go far enough?

Dundas is criticized today for amending a motion in Britain’s Parliament in 1792.9 His original motion called for the immediate end to the slave trade. But outright abolition was unrealistic at the time, and thus historians agree that Dundas’ original motion would surely have failed.10 Moreover, Britain’s competitors – especially the Portuguese and French – would have simply picked up where Britain left off. Realizing this, Dundas made a strategic pivot and called for a gradual end to the slave trade. His strategy worked, and his amended motion succeeded with a significant majority.11

Change would take time. Only about one percent of the adult population had the right to vote,12 and many had at least an indirect financial interest in West Indian plantations (as did numerous Members of Parliament), and trade with the plantations generated income for businesses in England and tariff revenue for the Crown. Surmounting such entrenched interests would not happen overnight.

And this is why Dundas’ successful motion was key: it shifted the tenor of the public discourse. For the first time, ending the slave trade was up for debate. The British empire at this time was nearing its peak as the largest empire in history, with enormous influence, and thus this step was significant in the eventual abolition of slavery worldwide.

The Toronto connection: Dundas the humanitarian

For his role in abolishing slavery, Dundas ought to be celebrated. The same is true of his major influence on the colonies that would become Canada and, in particular, on what would become the province of Ontario and the city of Toronto. Importantly, that influence was wielded in support of issues that, today, would be described as relating to equity, inclusion, and reconciliation—ironically, the exact criteria (“commitments”) justifying the city’s condemnation of him.

Appointing Simcoe, the empire’s first legislator to outlaw slavery

Dundas was a close friend of John Graves Simcoe (another staunch abolitionist), and he appointed Simcoe as the first lieutenant-governor of Upper Canada in 1791. It was Simcoe who, two years later, would introduce the Act to Limit Slavery in Upper Canada, the very first legislation in the entire British empire to limit slavery.14

The legislation passed, beginning the abolition of slavery in the province. Although the legislation did not free slaves already present, it freed the children of such slaves at age 25, and made Upper Canada a safe haven for slaves fleeing the United States.15 Like the precedent Dundas set in Scotland, no slave could remain a slave on Upper Canadian soil. Over the next seven decades, more than 40,000 black men and women would risk their lives to escape slavery and find freedom in Upper Canada.

When Dundas appointed Simcoe, he knew about Simcoe’s abolitionist sympathies—and almost certainly anticipated the legislation he would propose.16 And thus, Dundas made possible what became known as the Underground Railroad.

Honouring black soldiers

Dundas also ordered the governors of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to honour Britain’s promise of land grants to 4,000 former slaves who had fought for the British against the American Revolution, and to offer free passage – courtesy of the British navy – to any who preferred to return to Africa.17

Initiating official bilingualism

Upon the division of the then-province of Quebec into Upper Canada (present-day Ontario) and Lower Canada (present-day Quebec) in 1791, Dundas instructed the English governor of Lower Canada to allow French-speaking parliamentarians to pass laws in French.18 This was a serious point of disagreement in the newly formed legislative assembly, as the (powerful) English minority insisted all British subjects be governed in English. Dundas solved the impasse by ordering that legislation be passed in both languages, in what is the first example of official bilingualism in Canadian history. (For context, this occurred only months after England and France were, once again, at war; and thus this act was truly magnanimous.)19

Defending indigenous peoples

Finally, following American Independence, Yankee incursions into Canadian territory were a very real and constant threat. Dundas, as secretary of state for Home Affairs, instructed the Canadian governor Sir Guy Carleton to intervene against the Americans and protect the interests of the “Indian Nations”:

…securing to them the peaceable and quiet possession of the Lands which they have hitherto occupied as their hunting Grounds, and such others as may enable them to procure a comfortable subsistence for themselves and their families.20

The irony: Replacing the abolitionist with slave traders

Given the evidence, Toronto city council’s treatment of Dundas is clearly not only ahistorical but shameful. Regrettably, so is their adoption of the replacement, the term “Sankofa” from the Akan language. Little needs to be said here, other than this: The Akan peoples of West Africa were notorious slave traders. During the transatlantic slave trade, the Akan captured, enslaved, and sold one to two million fellow Africans into slavery. In other words, the Akan were the source of 10 to 20 percent of all transatlantic slaves.

Conclusion

The Toronto city council narrative surrounding the renaming of Yonge-Dundas Square flies in the face of historical fact. Dundas was demonstrably ahead of his time as a humanitarian. And as a politician, he was not only principled and morally courageous but effective. Dundas was one of the key figures in abolishing the slave trade, opening up the Underground Railroad, and protecting minorities of various backgrounds—black, French, and indigenous. If the city really wants to promote the act of “reflecting on and reclaiming teachings from the past,”21 as it claims, it might do well to start with the truth about Henry Dundas’ legacy. There may be times to rename a place or landmark, but this is not one of them.

Endnotes

Please see references in PDF

About the author

Greg Piasetzki is a Toronto-based intellectual property lawyer, a senior fellow with the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy, and a citizen of the Métis Nation of Ontario.

About the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy

Who we are

The Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy is a new education and public policy think tank that aims to renew a civil, common-sense approach to public discourse and public policy in Canada.

Continue Reading

Trending

X